Philosophy Discussion Forums

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

Also, my question is not about the existence of God. He may exist or he may not exist. That is a debate that can keep going on. My question is, what is the relevance of God assuming he exists? What difference does God make to the lives of people today which other than psychological?

The fact that you don't believe God exists, and there are no arguments for God's existence which for you have veracity. Demonstrates that you're asking about the relevance of a being which you don't believe exists. This is a massive oxymoron. How can something which doesn't exist have relevance? How can something which doesn't exist have a psychological effect? What you're asking people to do, from your stand point and perspective (as an atheist), is to tell you their delusions, after which point you, due to your position, will call them delusional, you can't do anything else. Why do you want people tell you their "delusions?"

Is that what you call philosophy.

This is what I call evasion. You believe in God. Yet you have no idea what the relevance of God is. That is why you cannot answer my question. You can see that I am right and that except for the psychological, there is no relevance to God. And that bothers you very much. I can see that in your answer. So I will not engage with you anymore. Good luck.

This is what I call evasion. You believe in God. Yet you have no idea what the relevance of God is. That is why you cannot answer my question. You can see that I am right and that except for the psychological, there is no relevance to God. And that bothers you very much. I can see that in your answer. So I will not engage with you anymore. Good luck.

LOL!!! My posting history is the complete antithesis of every single spurious claim you make here (and the truth). This is too funny to be true. Fanks. Keep asking people to tell you, what you think constitutes delusions...

This is what I call evasion. You believe in God. Yet you have no idea what the relevance of God is. That is why you cannot answer my question. You can see that I am right and that except for the psychological, there is no relevance to God. And that bothers you very much. I can see that in your answer. So I will not engage with you anymore. Good luck.

LOL!!! My posting history is the complete antithesis of every single spurious claim you make here (and the truth). This is too funny to be true. Fanks. Keep asking people to tell you, what you think constitutes delusions...

And in spite of all your declarations, I still don't see an answer.

What is the relevance of God?

So many of you, each believing his God is the only right one. You pray, you plead, you beg. What does he do? How does he change reality? What is his significance?

21,000 children die everyday. EVERY DAY.

Where is he? He might cure your headache. He might get someone a great job. He might even prevent a car accident.

But what about the 21,000 children that die EVERY DAY? Children are our future. They are the next generation. They are what is most important to every parent.

21,000 die every day. God does nothing for them. Is this neglect justified?

Is there anyway anyone can justify the death of21,000 children every day?

Is a miracle performed by a saint to cure a man of some disease acceptable in the face of 21,000 children dying which God could have prevented but did not every single day?

That is 20, 999 miracles that God actively did not perform. Why? Are children not important to him?

Actually the relevance of God is that those 21.000 also found life in him as first cause of life itself. Then if God is first cause He also ends with first cause and second cause is next here now as man in the image of God and is doomed to die sometime. Second cause here is Lord God and that is you and me and every living being under God, with the only difference that many or most people do not equate humans as Lord God under God as second cause and that is why things go wrong, which is not to say that we can say it is their own fault that they die, but it sure as hell is wrong to blame the source life for its own death.

So then as second cause are we known as Man while in the human condition we take charge of this life in our conscious mind, and that also includes you and me and now as humans who must think to do something right in life as master of the individual, and that surely is everyone who's life so is not there own as they merely are usurper there, when only things can go wrong.

And now, while I am still not blaming the children here, as natural there is no reason for them to die unless things go wrong for them and that so is where we can blame the social conditions for them, including the bombs we drop when we fight our own enemies.

So God is not into miracles as first cause, and we should look human nature where only death is known as an opposite.

-- Updated September 20th, 2015, 3:17 pm to add the following --

To be sure, if God is the source of life we cannot blame the source of life for death.

Religion is an add-on to remind us that life itself is like a prayer for us to live, and churches are not a house of prayer but more like a display of our good works in evidence that we do our time in memory of our past, and so we are the continuity of God's presence here on earth (we do our 10 % in time spend much like a contemplative from time to time).

Actually the relevance of God is that those 21.000 also found life in him as first cause of life itself.

By "21.000" Lambert possibly refers to those who die as young kids. Lambert is wrong, of course, that kids find life in God, whatever that means. Whether or not God is first cause kids who die have died so they demonstrably have not found life.

I submit one objection only as I have neither time nor patience for L's twisted language.

Actually the relevance of God is that those 21.000 also found life in him as first cause of life itself.

By "21.000" Lambert possibly refers to those who die as young kids. Lambert is wrong, of course, that kids find life in God, whatever that means. Whether or not God is first cause kids who die have died so they demonstrably have not found life.

I submit one objection only as I have neither time nor patience for L's twisted language.

But Belinda, only those who are lost in life can find life and these children surely are not those. The God we are trying to identify is the source of life and that is what makes it wrong that these children die.

That would be those who are looking for Jesus or found him and now are waiting for him to come back, and that would include those who found him and lost him again.

I think that alienation begins with the age of reason as it is made known in Gen. 3:10 where the man first realized that he was naked and felt shame. Notice that in Gen. 2:25 they were both naked and felt no shame. So children here do not feel shame and is why the second identity is called Adam and he is the outsider to man.

That would be those who are looking for Jesus or found him and now are waiting for him to come back, and that would include those who found him and lost him again.

I think that alienation begins with the age of reason as it is made known in Gen. 3:10 where the man first realized that he was naked and felt shame. Notice that in Gen. 2:25 they were both naked and felt no shame. So children here do not feel shame and is why the second identity is called Adam and he is the outsider to man.

Lambert, First question: how is it that some young kids are learning that a man who was tortured to death by the Romans two thousand years ago might "come back" ?

Second question: have you any respect for modern historiography, which is not based upon God?

Bk2Kant wrote:If God proved he existed he would take away the meaning of faith. If people did not have faith thier love for and/or obedience of God would be similar to our obedience of government a way to kep us in ine because we fear inevitable punishment should we do wrong. If we believe in God based on faith it is a diferent relationship and we could agree with the Christian idea that you have to take the lead of faith and trust in God fully to be forgiven for the flaws he has given you. I think you're devotion to God gets discredited if the existance of Gos were common knowledge.

The only issue I have with this is that any ultimate and all knowing beings such as the Abrahamic God (or any other for that matter) would have to understand that their "word" is quite ambiguous. Each religion seems to have it's own sects and sub-sects simply because of human interpretation.

This interpretation of "holy" books has led millions to murder and be murdered (think Sunnis, Shi'ites, Catholics, Protestants, Therevada Buddhists, Hindus etc.). If a God were truly compassionate (like so many religions claim), one would imagine that he/she/it would care for it's creations. If God were compassionate, he/she/it would probably not allow these transgressions to occur in his/her/it's name. All murder done in the name of God could have been prevented if God came and cleared the air.

Actually, God does not allow it, it's like a school system: If you do something wrong you get thrown out, but sin is like a nice hotel and you don't realize it has bed bugs till you've fallen asleep. Sin is fun and feels good until you find out you can't pass into heaven. No matter how you interpret the word of God: He will speak to you and lay things on your heart if you have true faith in him. The mass murderers do not listen to God; they interpret the word how they want to, not how God tells them to.

Perhaps God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) does exist, but he is beyond our understanding, i.e., God as an infinite, perfect being is beyond the grasp of our imperfect, finite minds. That is to say, if our minds were not so constituted, we could "know" God and his divine plan would make perfect sense to us. The argument that faith is contingent upon mystery is a valid one (if God requires faith). The idea that beauty is perfection and thus God, as a perfect being, exists (or may exist) is problematic if we, as human beings, cannot transcend our own innate subjectivity. What if only a perfect being can comprehending the true nature of beauty? Maybe God has already proven his existence in that the only way our imperfect minds can conceive of a perfect being is if the being itself put the concept in our minds. The idea that God cannot reveal himself because he is inherently limited in some way is not plausible if we hold that a supreme being can do anything. That is to say, it is not in God's nature to reveal himself and God cannot act contrary to his nature. Or he just doesn't care. Hi.